Changes in Parents' Relationships after Child Protective Services Involvement within the Context of Domestic Violence

Background

Approximately 16% of U.S. children are exposed to domestic violence. Domestic violence is detrimental to parent and child well-being, associated with maternal and child violence, anxiety, depression, and aggression. Children exposed to domestic violence commonly come to the attention of child protective services (CPS). Approximately 20% of child welfare cases include domestic violence. The voice of parents and the context of the situations in which domestic violence occurs is currently absent from the literature. This study considered what happens to domestic violence relationships when CPS becomes involved and how changes in relationships impact parents’ circumstances and network relationships.

Methods

The Power of Parents in Child Protection Study is a statewide, 18-month longitudinal mixed methods study of parents with recently substantiated cases of child maltreatment (N=75). The study examined a subsample of parents whose CPS cases involved domestic violence at baseline (N=30) including 25 women, 5 men, and 2 couples, and included data from a second qualitative interview collected at six months after the first (N=24). The study used thematic analysis of interview transcripts, including several steps to incorporate reflexivity, trustworthiness, and rigor.

Results

With the exception of one parent who expressed that CPS involvement brought her and her partner “together,” parents described CPS involvement introducing complexity, difficulty, and trauma into their relationships with partners. Parents uniformly described how CPS caseworkers encouraged them to end their partner relationships without consideration of consequential resource loss. Parents’ perceptions of the precipitating incident, whether they were the perpetrator, and their level of emotional and instrumental dependence on their partner shaped their post-CPS relationships. Women—not men—who initiated CPS involvement typically did so after a series of incidents and ended contact with their partner immediately regardless of their level of need. Parents generally viewed incidents reported by loved ones (e.g., sisters, fathers) or outsiders (schools, neighbors, acquaintances) as unwarranted. Here, parents prioritized caseplan completion. Parents generally kept (and married in multiple instances) partners who provided instrumental support (e.g., housing, transportation) and, for a few, emotional support and when they perceived the incident as misinterpreted (e.g., “a big misunderstanding”). Parents exited relationships when partners would not communicate with them due to CPS involvement, they viewed the violence as a pattern, and they believed that they could complete their caseplans without their partners (e.g., strong family support).

Conclusion & Implications

Recent calls to consider domestic violence focus on the importance of policies and worker training to enhance service delivery. Results reinforce previous studies highlighting individualized CPS caseplans and services. For those involved with domestic violence, supports in the context of the precipitating incident and parents’ support systems seem to provide critical information to understand parent needs. Parents in the CPS system face material and emotional demands making relationship dissolution difficult for many. Connecting parents to public assistance programs and community resources to replace partner support is critical to support parents for whom relationship dissolution is extremely consequential to their financial solvency and family stability.